Shipbucket

Well, there is one idea I had that might or might not work out.

Go Nuclear.

I've seen numbers that showed that even without containerization NS Savannah would have been cost effective to run after the oil shocks started in the 1970s. If you don't stack the containers where they are visible (say with a low covering so they are outside of the hull proper, but not directly visible), a RO-RO hatch on the side, and the streamlined look of Savannah you might have something. I think I'd play up the round-the-world service, and focus on a high level of service for a small number of passengers. You'll never hit the richest part of the population, but you could hit the upper-middle class population for whom an around-the-world cruise is a possibility, but only something they do once. You also play up the regularity of the service, and the regularity of the cost structure.

I do know that the fastest cargo ships ever (the SL-7s - I think Alex has them on his docket) had nuclear power evaluated in the design process. That would have pushed their range up, and in the later 70's, the operating costs down.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Maersk triple E class with Nuclear propulsion equals big profits for the GTC.

Thing is, even at 30kts the Hamburg-New York run takes five days and bad weather can easily make it six.
In comparison it takes about eight hours to fly the same route. A lot less if they take the Concorde.
The only way to get people to take the boat in this case is if it's extremely cheap (It won't be but more on that later) or if it's a cruise.
If you make it a cruise ship then you'll have to loose the mixed cargo capability since cruise guests aren't going to want to visit any freight terminals. (Especially not in the 70ies New York)
She's not going to be cheap either. This has nothing to do with her nuclear propulsion, it's because she carries passengers.
The problem is that passengers needs a lot of crew to look after them (About two for every five passengers on contemporary long haul ferries)
Unfortunately this number doesn't scale well. The fewer passengers you have the more crew you need per passengers.
So you'll need a significantly larger crew in order to carry a meaningful number of passengers. And that's not even considering the crew. By the 1970ies even the largest diesel ships had engine crews of less than twenty people.
Hard to say really. There's only ever been four nuclear merchants, of which only one was ever truly in commercial service, so the operational costs have never been fully mapped out. One question in particular that hasn't been answered is what effect would wide scale adoption of nuclear power have on the supply situation? Will supply be able to keep up with demand? Fuel grade uranium is not exactly easy to extract.
(I'm aware of the soviet ice breakers, but they operate in an entirely different economical and physical environment)

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Would the cutter be armed like many John Co. ships?

Ah, it's good to be back
Hopefully later today or tomorrow we (Trojan has become a valuable addition to the company) will have a frigate design for you. Built by British yards, they are modified Leanders, and they will hopefully serve until the turn of the century.
There are also various refits of them, across the decades, to keep them useful. I hope to see you all commenting

Right, here we go:
This is the first of the late 20th century escorts for the Company. The Leander class was a perfect addition to the fleet, with range, relatively good price, and only minor modifications needed to make it the companies own ship. So, as built in 1973:

Yes, the crediting needs fixing. It's Hood & Trojan...

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... jk%202.png
if you are going for an LW-02 radar, why not use the mast designed for it?
also, if you are going to use partially dutch equipment, why not also use the M-44 directors, which, according to some sources, were even better then the british equivalent.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Good idea, and that way you can ship an extra Seacat launcher; but I notice you're showing two helicopters? I don't think there was room for two on that design.

Alright I will change in the Dutch directors and the proper mast
For the helicopters it was too show that it can ship either a wasp or aloutte 3
If this is not the correct way to show that I am willing to change it

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Right. Strictly speaking the hovering helicopter indicates capability to land but no hanger, and the one on the flight deck indicates hanger capability; but with AU, I wouldn't think it would matter.